Michigan's Mike Cox is at it again - Warrants issued for child support

My thinking was that if they're missing credit card payments they/re living
off of credit cards. (Either that or they are committing fraud by charging
things they don't intend to pay for.) My point is I don't see a person who
has money to pay bills letting their credit get cut off. IF they were
current on their credit payments, then an argument -based solely on a credit
report- could be made that they have money because they are covering monthly
payments -which include interest charges.

Regarding your true story, I find this NCP to be an idiot that deserves to
have his life interfered with by the state. You are right that he should be
responsible for his offspring. The problem I have is that the system is not
capable of discerning the characters of either the CP or NCP; so, in the
interim -and I speak from my own private experience- if you are male NCP and
are having financial problems you are a dirt bag. My ex lied in our CS
meeting, but her word was accepted as being true while the state agent told
me my signed federal tax returns were bogus. She had NO evidence to support
any of her judgments.

I'm guessing here, but I would bet that financial stress/problems ranks very
high on the list of surface reasons for divorce. Assuming this to be the
case, a high percentage of the CS cases would involve financially troubled
couples. The financial trouble doesn't go away after the divorce. In fact it
get's worse. Expenses almost double over night.

Here's a true story from my experience. A NCP is assigned an income
potential (or whatever they call it) that is more than he is able to GROSS.
He pays for 2 to 3 years anyway. (Never reaches this income potential. Is
borrowing money to pay CS and meet his own bills.) CP wants more money. CP's
income has doubled over the past 3 years. The CP's excuse for wanting more
CS was unpaid health bills. The NCP now has to pay CS according to CP's new
salary. The CS goes up 40%. Here's the kicker: The unpaid health bills were
never even discussed, except that the CP says she couldn't find them. (She
just purchased a $145,000 house and her records were in storage.) The CS
meeting should never have even taken place. The unpaid health bills bit was
BS, but it got her a CS hearing to have the support calculated at her
inflated income. No doubt that when the CP's income drops, she will file for
another increase because her income has went down. We'll see if the state
uses the new lower income to calculate the CS. I'm betting they don't.

I think both of our stories indicate that the system -for all its intrusions
into peoples' lives- is beaten by people who are "scum" to start with. And
just because CS is going to someone doesn't mean the children are
benefiting. In my story above it's obvious were the CS was going to go (into
the mortgage payment). That said, I think the spirit of the CS rules, laws,
and its agents needs to consider both parties equally, and not cater to one
or the either or assume one is scum just because they are having financial
troubles.

Dave the Wave.

"Indyguy1" wrote in message
...
Dave the Wave wrote:

The 27 people for whom arrest warrants were issued Thursday were chosen
partly because credit checks have shown they have the ability to pay.
They
owe money in amounts ranging from $13,000 to more than $100,000, and
all
have been delinquent with payments for at least a year.

Sounds more like they don't have the money to pay, otherwise they would
be
paying down their debt or at least keeping their credit in good standing
so
they can continue to use it.


Does it really sound that way to you? It surely doesn't to me. They pulled
their credit reports. In case you are not aware, credit reports tell a lot
about how much money one has access to and how they spend it.

Here's an actual case:

NCP behind $5000 in CS. He has not paid CS since Nov. 2003. Do you tell me
by
just that info you feel he doesn't have the money to pay the CS?

Now here are the details:

NCP divorced 7 years ago. CS set at $560 a month, based on 20% of his net.
CP
never once asks for an increase. NCP moves out of state to be closer to
his
favorite amusement park, resulting in his requesting and being granted a
reduction in CS to $500 a month due to a lower wage.

NCP and 2nd wife decide they want to return to the state the the NCPs
child
lives in, as the new wife is also from that state and misses her friends
and
family.

They return and NCP gets a job at a higher rate of pay than he had before
he
moved. He doesn't want his two new kids in day care so he quits the job
and
stops paying CS. He files for an abatement claiming he lost his job, can't
find
work, and there is no quality day care that is acceptable to him in his
area.
None of that is true BTW.

Since their return they manage to by a 200K home, 2 new cars (one a 2004
mini
van with every upgrade offered to the tune of 26K), a plasma TV, throw 3
very
large parties with catered food and entertainment, and keep up to date on
their
time share payment of $250 per month.

This guy doesn't give a rats ass about his credit. They run everything
through
his wife's credit, that is untouched by his refusal to pay CS.

They figure since the 1st wife remarried the NCP shouldn't have to pay CS
any
longer, as the exes 2nd husband makes about what the NCPs 2nd wife earns.
The
CP also works as she always has.

This isn't a case of the NCP not having the ability to help support his
child
from his first marriage. It's a case of the NCP moving on with his life
and
expecting other people to support his 1st child so he can drive new cars,
throw
parties, and vacation at Disney.

This isn't an isolated case.It is cases like this that keep the courts
involved
in what so many NCPs want them out of.

Mrs Indyguy

My thinking was that if they're missing credit card payments they/re living
off of credit cards. (Either that or they are committing fraud by charging
things they don't intend to pay for.) My point is I don't see a person who
has money to pay bills letting their credit get cut off. IF they were
current on their credit payments, then an argument -based solely on a credit
report- could be made that they have money because they are covering monthly
payments -which include interest charges.

Regarding your true story, I find this NCP to be an idiot that deserves to
have his life interfered with by the state. You are right that he should be
responsible for his offspring. The problem I have is that the system is not
capable of discerning the characters of either the CP or NCP; so, in the
interim -and I speak from my own private experience- if you are male NCP and
are having financial problems you are a dirt bag. My ex lied in our CS
meeting, but her word was accepted as being true while the state agent told
me my signed federal tax returns were bogus. She had NO evidence to support
any of her judgments.

I'm guessing here, but I would bet that financial stress/problems ranks very
high on the list of surface reasons for divorce. Assuming this to be the
case, a high percentage of the CS cases would involve financially troubled
couples. The financial trouble doesn't go away after the divorce. In fact it
get's worse. Expenses almost double over night.

Here's a true story from my experience. A NCP is assigned an income
potential (or whatever they call it) that is more than he is able to GROSS.
He pays for 2 to 3 years anyway. (Never reaches this income potential. Is
borrowing money to pay CS and meet his own bills.) CP wants more money. CP's
income has doubled over the past 3 years. The CP's excuse for wanting more
CS was unpaid health bills. The NCP now has to pay CS according to CP's new
salary. The CS goes up 40%. Here's the kicker: The unpaid health bills were
never even discussed, except that the CP says she couldn't find them. (She
just purchased a $145,000 house and her records were in storage.) The CS
meeting should never have even taken place. The unpaid health bills bit was
BS, but it got her a CS hearing to have the support calculated at her
inflated income. No doubt that when the CP's income drops, she will file for
another increase because her income has went down. We'll see if the state
uses the new lower income to calculate the CS. I'm betting they don't.

I think both of our stories indicate that the system -for all its intrusions
into peoples' lives- is beaten by people who are "scum" to start with. And
just because CS is going to someone doesn't mean the children are
benefiting. In my story above it's obvious were the CS was going to go (into
the mortgage payment). That said, I think the spirit of the CS rules, laws,
and its agents needs to consider both parties equally, and not cater to one
or the either or assume one is scum just because they are having financial
troubles.

Dave the Wave.

"Indyguy1" wrote in message
...
Dave the Wave wrote:

The 27 people for whom arrest warrants were issued Thursday were chosen
partly because credit checks have shown they have the ability to pay.
They
owe money in amounts ranging from $13,000 to more than $100,000, and
all
have been delinquent with payments for at least a year.

Sounds more like they don't have the money to pay, otherwise they would
be
paying down their debt or at least keeping their credit in good standing
so
they can continue to use it.


Does it really sound that way to you? It surely doesn't to me. They pulled
their credit reports. In case you are not aware, credit reports tell a lot
about how much money one has access to and how they spend it.

Here's an actual case:

NCP behind $5000 in CS. He has not paid CS since Nov. 2003. Do you tell me
by
just that info you feel he doesn't have the money to pay the CS?

Now here are the details:

NCP divorced 7 years ago. CS set at $560 a month, based on 20% of his net.
CP
never once asks for an increase. NCP moves out of state to be closer to
his
favorite amusement park, resulting in his requesting and being granted a
reduction in CS to $500 a month due to a lower wage.

NCP and 2nd wife decide they want to return to the state the the NCPs
child
lives in, as the new wife is also from that state and misses her friends
and
family.

They return and NCP gets a job at a higher rate of pay than he had before
he
moved. He doesn't want his two new kids in day care so he quits the job
and
stops paying CS. He files for an abatement claiming he lost his job, can't
find
work, and there is no quality day care that is acceptable to him in his
area.
None of that is true BTW.

Since their return they manage to by a 200K home, 2 new cars (one a 2004
mini
van with every upgrade offered to the tune of 26K), a plasma TV, throw 3
very
large parties with catered food and entertainment, and keep up to date on
their
time share payment of $250 per month.

This guy doesn't give a rats ass about his credit. They run everything
through
his wife's credit, that is untouched by his refusal to pay CS.

They figure since the 1st wife remarried the NCP shouldn't have to pay CS
any
longer, as the exes 2nd husband makes about what the NCPs 2nd wife earns.
The
CP also works as she always has.

This isn't a case of the NCP not having the ability to help support his
child
from his first marriage. It's a case of the NCP moving on with his life
and
expecting other people to support his 1st child so he can drive new cars,
throw
parties, and vacation at Disney.

This isn't an isolated case.It is cases like this that keep the courts
involved
in what so many NCPs want them out of.

Mrs Indyguy

My thinking was that if they're missing credit card payments they/re living
off of credit cards. (Either that or they are committing fraud by charging
things they don't intend to pay for.) My point is I don't see a person who
has money to pay bills letting their credit get cut off. IF they were
current on their credit payments, then an argument -based solely on a credit
report- could be made that they have money because they are covering monthly
payments -which include interest charges.

Regarding your true story, I find this NCP to be an idiot that deserves to
have his life interfered with by the state. You are right that he should be
responsible for his offspring. The problem I have is that the system is not
capable of discerning the characters of either the CP or NCP; so, in the
interim -and I speak from my own private experience- if you are male NCP and
are having financial problems you are a dirt bag. My ex lied in our CS
meeting, but her word was accepted as being true while the state agent told
me my signed federal tax returns were bogus. She had NO evidence to support
any of her judgments.

I'm guessing here, but I would bet that financial stress/problems ranks very
high on the list of surface reasons for divorce. Assuming this to be the
case, a high percentage of the CS cases would involve financially troubled
couples. The financial trouble doesn't go away after the divorce. In fact it
get's worse. Expenses almost double over night.

Here's a true story from my experience. A NCP is assigned an income
potential (or whatever they call it) that is more than he is able to GROSS.
He pays for 2 to 3 years anyway. (Never reaches this income potential. Is
borrowing money to pay CS and meet his own bills.) CP wants more money. CP's
income has doubled over the past 3 years. The CP's excuse for wanting more
CS was unpaid health bills. The NCP now has to pay CS according to CP's new
salary. The CS goes up 40%. Here's the kicker: The unpaid health bills were
never even discussed, except that the CP says she couldn't find them. (She
just purchased a $145,000 house and her records were in storage.) The CS
meeting should never have even taken place. The unpaid health bills bit was
BS, but it got her a CS hearing to have the support calculated at her
inflated income. No doubt that when the CP's income drops, she will file for
another increase because her income has went down. We'll see if the state
uses the new lower income to calculate the CS. I'm betting they don't.

I think both of our stories indicate that the system -for all its intrusions
into peoples' lives- is beaten by people who are "scum" to start with. And
just because CS is going to someone doesn't mean the children are
benefiting. In my story above it's obvious were the CS was going to go (into
the mortgage payment). That said, I think the spirit of the CS rules, laws,
and its agents needs to consider both parties equally, and not cater to one
or the either or assume one is scum just because they are having financial
troubles.

Dave the Wave.

"Indyguy1" wrote in message
...
Dave the Wave wrote:

The 27 people for whom arrest warrants were issued Thursday were chosen
partly because credit checks have shown they have the ability to pay.
They
owe money in amounts ranging from $13,000 to more than $100,000, and
all
have been delinquent with payments for at least a year.

Sounds more like they don't have the money to pay, otherwise they would
be
paying down their debt or at least keeping their credit in good standing
so
they can continue to use it.


Does it really sound that way to you? It surely doesn't to me. They pulled
their credit reports. In case you are not aware, credit reports tell a lot
about how much money one has access to and how they spend it.

Here's an actual case:

NCP behind $5000 in CS. He has not paid CS since Nov. 2003. Do you tell me
by
just that info you feel he doesn't have the money to pay the CS?

Now here are the details:

NCP divorced 7 years ago. CS set at $560 a month, based on 20% of his net.
CP
never once asks for an increase. NCP moves out of state to be closer to
his
favorite amusement park, resulting in his requesting and being granted a
reduction in CS to $500 a month due to a lower wage.

NCP and 2nd wife decide they want to return to the state the the NCPs
child
lives in, as the new wife is also from that state and misses her friends
and
family.

They return and NCP gets a job at a higher rate of pay than he had before
he
moved. He doesn't want his two new kids in day care so he quits the job
and
stops paying CS. He files for an abatement claiming he lost his job, can't
find
work, and there is no quality day care that is acceptable to him in his
area.
None of that is true BTW.

Since their return they manage to by a 200K home, 2 new cars (one a 2004
mini
van with every upgrade offered to the tune of 26K), a plasma TV, throw 3
very
large parties with catered food and entertainment, and keep up to date on
their
time share payment of $250 per month.

This guy doesn't give a rats ass about his credit. They run everything
through
his wife's credit, that is untouched by his refusal to pay CS.

They figure since the 1st wife remarried the NCP shouldn't have to pay CS
any
longer, as the exes 2nd husband makes about what the NCPs 2nd wife earns.
The
CP also works as she always has.

This isn't a case of the NCP not having the ability to help support his
child
from his first marriage. It's a case of the NCP moving on with his life
and
expecting other people to support his 1st child so he can drive new cars,
throw
parties, and vacation at Disney.

This isn't an isolated case.It is cases like this that keep the courts
involved
in what so many NCPs want them out of.

Mrs Indyguy